Kolkata Court May 1919 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Paresh Nath Ghose Vs. Hari Charan Shaha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal350,52Ind.Cas.23
Walmsley, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the judgment-debtor. The respondents obtained a decree against him on a mortgage for a sum of about Rs. 12,000 and applied for execution. A notice was then issued to the judgment-debtor under Clause (2) of Order XXI, Rule 66, Code of Civil Procedure, and the judgment debtor appeared in Court. Shortly after that, he applied to this Court for stay of execution of the decree and this Court ordered an enquiry to be made for the purpose of ascertaining whether the mortgaged property was sufficient security for the amount of the decree. This enquiry was held by the learned Subordinate Judge and the conclusion at which he came was that the property was worth about, Rs. 11,200. Shortly after that enquiry was completed, the decree holders asked to have a sale proclamation issued and a proclamation was issued; and, in that proclamation, the value of the property was stated to be not Rs 11,200 as it was found in the enquiry, but Rs. 6,000. In due course,...
Chandra Kanta Bhattacharjee and anr. Vs. Behari Lal Bhattacharjee and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.436
Shamsul Huda, J.1. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was instituted on the 4th of April 1912 against defendants Nos. 1 and 2, sons of one Uma Kanta, for enforcement of a mortgage-bond, dated the 5th Bhadra 1307 B.S. (21st August 1900), executed by Uma Kanta and defendant No. 1. A mortgage-decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff and the mortgaged properties were sold in execution of such decree. The sale-proceeds having proved insufficient, an application was made for a personal decree in respect of the balance. The suit was instituted on the 4th of April 1912 and on that date the personal remedy was barred by limitation unless payment of a part of the interest made on the 29th of Chaitra 1312 (12th April 1906) gave a fresh start to the plaintiff under Section 20 of the Limitation Act. That payment was made by the defendant No. 1 who was at the time the karta of the joint family, the father having died in the meantime. The defendant No. 2 is a minor. It is found that ...
Hridoy Nath Parui and anr. Vs. Akshoy Lal Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal814,52Ind.Cas.463
Newbould, J.1. This is a second appeal against a decree declaring the right and title of the plaintiffs to the land in suit and for recovery of possession of the same. The decision of the lower Appellate Court is based on findings of fact; but it is contended on the part of the appellants that these findings were arrived at on a consideration of documents which were irrelevant. The documents in question were deeds executed by persons who were not parties to the suit with reference to land on the boundary of the disputed land, in which statements were made in support of the plaintiffs' claim. No objection was taken to the admission of these documents; and it appears to me on the authority of the cases of Imrit Chamar v. Sridhar Panday 13 Ind. Cas 120 : 15 C.L.J. 7 at p. 9 : 17 C.W.N. 108 and Abdullah v. Kunja Behari 12 Ind. Cas. 149 : 14 C.L.J. 467 : 16 C.W.N. 252 that these statements must be held to be relevant. It is urged that they should not have been admitted in evidence because t...
Jagir Pramanik Vs. Subid Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1919
Reported in: 54Ind.Cas.378
1. The questions before us arise out of a hebanama by a Mubammadan lady named Katu Bewa. It baa been found by the learned Subordinate Judge that the plaintiff has failed to prove that be is the sole heir of Katu Bewa. Having regard to that, it has been rightly held that the plaintiff is entitled to 8 annas of the property mentioned in Schedule ka. The other 8 annas, therefore, is to go to the defendants.2. With regard to the deed of gift, he agrees with the learned Munsif that it was duly executed and that the donor intended to give the plaintiff the quantity of land mentioned in the deed. But he held that as the deed of gift did not show which portion she intended to give away, the matter came within the mischief of the rule of Musha. It is, however, to be noticed that the deed purports to give half of the quantity of land mentioned therein. In one plot reference is made to 5 cottas only. But it appears from the evidence that that 5 cottas is half of the 10 cottas which was owned by t...
Hari Kanta Das Barman and ors. Vs. Bibi Nurannessa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal776,53Ind.Cas.625
Newbould, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit under Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act in which the plaintiff re spondent prayed for correction of the Record of Rights. Both Courts have decided in the plaintiff's favour. In the suit three corrections were sought to be made, but I am now only concerned with the third and that is whether a certain plot of land of which one Rup Kanta Das is in actual occupation appertains to the tenure of Rs. 201 odd belonging to the plaintiff, or to the tenure of Re. 168 odd belonging to the defendants-appellants.2. The first Court decreed the suit, and on appeal to the lower Appellate Court it was contended amongst other points that the decision of the lower Court was based on inadmissible evidence; the learned Judge, however, his judgment has not dealt with these points. He has held that as in a title suit brought by the plaintiff against Rup Kanta in 1912, RuP Kanta compromised and admitted the plaintiff's title, the plaintiff must be held to hav...
Umed Ali and ors. Vs. Nawab Khaje Habibulla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.38
Second Appeals Nos. 1244,1523 to 1529 of 1916.1. These appeals arise out of suits for recovery of rent and also for enhancement of rent on the ground of a rise in the prices of staple food crops.2. The defence was that the rent was not liable to enhancement and the defendants relied upon the presumption under Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.3. The learned Subordinate Judge says: ' The defendants have not exhibited their dakhilas. They, however, rely upon the plaintiffs' papers to show that their jamas have not been altered for the last 20 years. But I do not think that the presumption under Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act can help the case for the defense in any way, for the presumption has been rebutted by the plaintiffs. The talab baki of 1281 goes to show that the jamas originally payable by the defendants were altered in that year.'4. It is contended before us that talab baki papers are merely corroborative and not independent evidence. No doubt, under Section 34 of the E...
Chagan Raj Vs. Hera Lal Doosaj
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1919
Reported in: 52Ind.Cas.889
Shamsul Huda, J.1. The facts of the case are shortly these. On the 5th of March 1919 a complaint was lodged on behalf of one Bibau Bibi also known as Gulabo Bibi (who to avoid confusion would hereafter be referred to by her last mentioned name) to the effect that Bibba Bibi, the widow of her deceased son Lala Kapur-chand, had adopted a boy Basant Roy aged about 5 years in the beginning of February last, that the accused, who as the natural father of the boy had given him in adoption by a registered deed, came to live in the house of the complainant with his wife and subsequently removed the child from her house without her consent and did not bring him back. As soon as the complaint was Sled, the accused produced the boy in Court and on the 21st of March filed a written statement in which he admitted having entered into a contract for giving his son in adoption, but denied that any actual ceremony of adoption had taken place. He also alleged misrepresentation and various other grounds ...
Raja Kristo Das Law and ors. Vs. Byomkesh Ohuckbrbutty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1919
Reported in: 53Ind.Cas.64
Newbould, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree dismissing a suit for rent in which the amount claimed is only Rs. 3-10 O.2. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies.3.For the appellant reliance is placed on the case of Dhanukdhari Lai v. Baburam Ahir (1), in which it was held that a suit for arrears of rent or, in the alternative, for' assessment of fair rent on the basis of a partition proceeding was outside the provisions of Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. But it appears that that decision does not apply to this case, as there is no prayer except one for recovery of arrears of rent.4. It appears to me doubtful whether the case is not to be taken out of the provisions: of Section 153 of the Bengal Tenanoy Act owing to there having been a decision and; a decree on a question relating to title to land. But, as the respondent in whose favour the decree was passed has now pleaded that no question has been decided,: it must be held, if there is any future litiga...
Abhoya Charn Latabaidya Vs. Srimati Kamini Probha Nag, Wife of Nilmani ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal401,53Ind.Cas.188
1. The plaintiff is the purchaser in execution of a decree for arrears due in respect of the land in suit. Section 159 of the Bengal Tenancy Act controls his rights. He as purchaser takes the tenure subject to the interests defined in Chapter XIV as 'protected interests.' Section 160 deals with protected interests, and Clause (c) mentions any lease of land whereon plantations have been made amongst others. The land in suit contains a boraj or betel leaf plantation. It has been in existence for about 30 years. The land originally belonged to one Bam Kumar who claimed Lakheraj title to it. He made a settlement for a term of three years to the contending defendant for making betel groves. That lease undoubtedly provided that he was to give up the land after the expiry of the lease. He held over and continued to pay rent to Ram Kumar. It has been found by the learned Subordinate Judge that Rim Kumar's claim that it was Lakheraj land, is not justified. He has found, however, that Bam Kumar ...
Batakrista Pramaniok Vs. Shebbaits of Sri Sri Sridhar Jewthakur Jogend ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Cal889,53Ind.Cas.639
Newbould, J..1 These appeals arise out of two suits for recovery of possession of two plots of land on a declaration of the plaintiff's title thereto. The plaintiff's, case is that these two pieces of land formed part of Jalpal Chak Purba and Pasohim Gumai clias Kalagaohee, which was permanently settled with the Raja of Mohisadal. On the 10th Assar 1281 corresponding to 7th June 1874, the Raja of Mabisadal granted a permanent lease of over 1,000 big has of land to one Mohesh Chandra Kotal. These lands were held by Mohesh and his successors in-interest who are referred to as the Kotals and were mortgaged on the 14th August 1905 to one Pitambar Maiti. Pitambar brought a suit on his mortgage, obtained a decree and purchased the mortgaged properties) in execution of the decree and was put in possession by the Court on the 12th August 1909. After Pitambar death, in 1911, the plaintiffs is these suits succeeded to Pitambar's interest and subsequently made an endowment of these lands in favou...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »